We hear that the Justice Department's special report on our favorite DOJ diva, Monica Goodling, will be coming out later today -- in fact, later this morning. Perhaps within 15 minutes or so, give or take....

Stay tuned. We'll update this space with more as it emerges.

Update (10:08 AM): As we predicted, the report of the Office of the Inspector General, "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General," has been released. To access it, click here (PDF).

We haven't head the chance to read it yet (since we're juggling several stories this morning). If you take a look at the report, please feel free to point out the most interesting portions, in the comments.

Further Update: More from NPR, the AP, and the WSJ Law Blog.

Justice Dept.'s Hiring Tactics Illegal, Report Says [National Public Radio]
DOJ: Former aide broke law in hiring scandal [Associated Press]
Who's to Blame for GonzoGate? DOJ Report Points to Goodling [WSJ Law Blog]

An observant tipster directed our attention to a fascinating excerpt from the Inspector General's report (PDF) about the politicization of hiring at the Justice Department's Honors Program. From page 59:

The Civil Rights Division had 24 of its 52 candidates deselected, and appealed 1. That candidate was a student at Harvard Law School with an A- grade average, had interned at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of California, and was strongly recommended by an attorney in the front office of the Civil Rights Division who knew him.

Rena Comisac, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, told us that after the appeal was submitted, [Michael] Elston informed her that the Screening Committee had found an article on the Internet in which the candidate was quoted as expressing regret that he had not participated in the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle. According to Comisac, Elston said that if the candidate wanted to participate in the Seattle WTO protests, which in Elston's opinion were close to a riot, then the candidate would not hesitate to chain himself to the front steps of the Department if he did not like the way something was being done. Comisac told us that it was clear to her that "any additional appeals would not be productive" and that she decided not to pursue the matter further."

Now we wonder who that might be. A Harvard Law School student with an impressive academic record, who has ties to the Sacramento area (E.D. Cal.), and who has publicly expressed regret about missing the 1999 WTO protests....

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

A Man of Many Hats [Harvard Crimson]

Earlier: Meet the Note Author: Phil Telfeyan, the Harvard Law Avenger

Could this be a mini-U.S. Attorneys firing scandal in the making? That's what a just-released report from the Justice Department's inspector general seems to suggest. From the New York Times:

Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department's inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year's scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

One reader who sent the article our way wrote: "Shocker." A second quipped: "Quelle surprise." To read the 115-page report, click here (PDF, via the WSJ).

Update: From a tipster comes this interesting info:

DOJ hiring practice report out. Doesn't look good, though I would certainly say they've revamped the system in the last year or so. I was hired through Honors last fall to start this coming fall, and my resume is very leftist. I can say the same for two friends who were also hired through Honors last year.

Further Update: Lots of good stuff in the comments, including highlights from the report. E.g.:

2002 applicants: ACS, 0-7; FedSoc, 27-2.
2006 applicants: ACS, 5-2; FedSoc, 15-4.

Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Department [New York Times]
Auditors Say Justice Dept. Improperly Screened for Political Ties [Washington Post]
IG Report: Greenpeace Bad, Federalist Society Good [WSJ Law Blog]

If you work for the government, you'll earn a fraction of what you could make at a private law firm. But at least you have job security, right?

Not necessarily. From the Washington Post:

The D.C. attorney general's office told 10 lawyers and a manager this week that they are being fired to help close a $3 million deficit in the office's fiscal 2009 budget.

The cuts are also being made because of the workers' poor performance and as part of an effort to transform the agency into what interim Attorney General Peter Nickles called a "first-rate law firm" with "strong, young, able stars."

Our tipster quips: "[Nickles] is trying to turn the Office of Attorney General into a law firm. What better way to make government attorneys feel they are working in a law firm than by firing 11 of them? The only problem: Nickels doesn't realize these government attorneys are in a union."

The purge, Nickles said, is only the beginning and is part of his overhaul of the $101 million operation. Lawyers are required to wear jackets at all times, must submit reports to him each week about their casework and will soon have to clock in and out, he said.

A Biglaw environment, for government pay? Where do we sign up?

Update: As noted in the comments, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles is a former partner at Covington & Burling.

D.C. Attorney General Fires 11 Staff Members [Washington Post]

When traveling abroad for the first time, it seems every American is struck by the brilliance of creating paper money with a correlation between the size of a bill and its value. "That must be nice for blind people," we think.

Well, the D.C. Circuit thinks the same way. In a 2-1 ruling (PDF) issued today, it affirmed a district court decision holding that the U.S. discriminates against blind people with its uniformly-sized bills.

The American Council for the Blind sued the Treasury Department six years ago. If the decision stands, vending machines everywhere will have to be redesigned!

That seems like a better defense than the one the Treasury Department used. From the Associated Press:

The U.S. acknowledges the design hinders blind people but it argued that blind people have adapted. Some relied on store clerks to help them, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish between bills.

The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.

Apparently, that huge ugly number five on the new five-dollar bill was the Treasury Department's first stab at meeting the needs of the blind. Unfortunately, it discriminates against good aesthetic taste.

What do you think of the decision?

Court says money discriminates against blind people [Associated Press]
Amer Cncl Blind v. Paulson, Henry [PDF]

We mentioned this story in passing a few times. But we probably should have given it a more prominent place in these pages, since it involves one of our favorite legal celebrities: the high-powered Monica Goodling, who held top positions at the U.S. Department of Justice, and who came to prominence during the U.S. Attorney firing controversy.

Here's an update, from NPR:

The Justice Department's inspector general confirmed Tuesday that he is looking into whether a department lawyer was dismissed over a rumor that she is a lesbian.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen was informed in 2006 that her contract working on Indian affairs in the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys would not be renewed for a second year -- despite receiving the highest possible performance reviews....

Glenn Fine of the Inspector General's Office and H. Marshall Jarrett of the Office of Professional Responsibility said they are looking into whether Hagen was "discriminated against in employment decisions on the basis of alleged sexual orientation or other improper factors."

Some claim that Hagen had "a Monica problem" -- i.e., that she was not in favor with the powerful Goodling, due to these sapphic whisperings.

Now, if the allegation were that Monica Goodling fired a DOJ lawyer because of a rumor that he might be gay, we'd dismiss it out of hand. In light of her overall fabulosity, as well as her status as "a survivor" -- someone who has successfully weathered serious political storms, while still looking poised, polished, and perfect -- Goodling will be hailed as an icon by future generations of gay male lawyers.

But this allegation involves a rumor that a lawyer was a lesbian. That's a whole different kettle of fish. So we'll wait and see what the DOJ probe reveals.

Justice Inquiry Centers on Dismissal, Gay Rumors [NPR]
Confirmed: DoJ Investigators Probing Whether Goodling Fired Lawyer Due to Gay Rumors [TPM Muckraker]

Not everyone likes Attorney General Michael Mukasey. At Boston College Law School, students are protesting Dean John Garvey's decision to invite Attorney General Mukasey to deliver the school's 2008 Commencement address. See here (Facebook group: "Waterboarding IS Torture"), here, and here.

Why are liberals so unhappy about Mukasey? We'd expect the AG to receive a warmer reception, in light of this happy news, which made the pages of the Washington Post:

Five years after a gay advocacy group was told that it could no longer use the e-mail, bulletin boards and meeting rooms at the Justice Department, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has reversed that decision and issued a revised equal-employment-opportunity policy barring discrimination against any group.

Mukasey informed leaders of DOJ Pride last week that the department would give it the same rights as all other DOJ employee organizations, said the group's president, Chris Hook. In a statement, Mukasey said the department will "foster an environment in which diversity is valued, understood and sought" and maintain "an environment that's free of discrimination."

Writes a Department of Justice source:

Finally -- now I can celebrate "Pride on Ice" anytime I want! Michael Mukasey gets two snaps in a circle for this decision!

In another sign of libertinism running rampant in the halls of justice, Lady Justice's magnificent metal breastses are no longer covered up, as they were during the repressive Ashcroft regime (during which female DOJ lawyers had to wear burqas to court). But the credit for the breast-baring belongs to Alberto Gonzales.

Attorney General Mukasey Reverses Anti-Gay Policy at Justice Dept [Towleroad: A Site With Homosexual Tendencies]
Attorney General Reverses Curbs On Gay Group at Justice Department [Washington Post]
Boston College Law School Community Members Protests Mukasey [ACS Blog]
Mukasey Invitation Prompts the Question: "What has BC Law become?" [Eagleionline]

Veteran litigator Joseph Russoniello, recently nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, previously served as senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Cooley Godward Kronish. If he's confirmed, which is looking likely, one would expect him to take a big pay cut as he moves from private practice to government service. The current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, earned $1,993,367 over 21 months while at Patterson Belknap; now, as AG, he takes home $186,600 a year.

But Joe Russoniello won't be taking such a huge pay cut. A reader observes:

Buried at the end of a Recorder article (subscription) about a DOJ report about Joe Russoniello’s possible conflicts or interest due to his $1.5 million stock portfolio is Joe’s last year’s compensation from Cooley Godward. This is the part that I found interesting. Why? Because it’s so low.

What do you think Cooley Godward was paying the ex-U.S. Attorney to serve as counsel to the firm? Half a million? A million? No.... $244,802!

In light of that paycheck -- which, while handsome by normal standards, is a pittance by Biglaw ones -- we hope that Russoniello's Cooley gig was super-cushy, with minimal billing required. His paycheck is pretty much equal to that of a third-year associate at Cravath, all in (base of $180,000, year-end bonus of $45,000, and special bonus of $20,000). But how many Cravath third-years can claim to have served as U.S. Attorney in a major city for eight years, as Joseph Russoniello did (1982-1990)?

Fighting Crime May Not Pay [The Recorder (subscription)]
Taking Stock of The DOJ's Next Targets [Legal Pad]

In the Senate chamber yesterday, crickets were chirping. From the New York Times:

Who says the Senate cannot act quickly? It conducted a full day’s business in less than 30 seconds on Tuesday.

Of course, there was no real business to conduct. But fearing that President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install disputed executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation, Democrats convened the Senate for the first of four microsessions to be held during the holiday break, precisely to thwart such an end run....

No legislation can pass at pro forma sessions, but they allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional requirement that, when not in recess, it meet on the day following three consecutive days off. Tuesday’s session was such a rush job that the traditional opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance were dispensed with. [Virginia Senator Jim Webb] was the only senator in the chamber, and even the otherwise ever-present teenage pages were absent, having been sent home for Thanksgiving.

Jim Webb has flashbacks to his 11th birthday party, when he sat all alone at the skating rink because none of the guests showed up.

Also, note the omission of the prayer and the Pledge. Godless Democrats!

Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments [New York Times]

Sorry to leave you unattended for a while -- we were off appearing on this panel. We left some items to be published in our absence, but unfortunately, continuing technical difficulties -- which frustrate us even more than they frustrate you -- prevented their posting.

In case you're wondering, we have no confirmed Biglaw bonus news to report right now. It seems that nowadays firms are holding their bonus news until the end of the day, perhaps in the hope that it will be less disruptive to associates billing away hours. But that just means associates spend the mornings and afternoons wondering about their financial fates -- and visiting sites like this one.

Anyway, we do have some bonus news, of a different sort. From a lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice:

Any thought of doing a post on government attorney bonuses? Such as they are, that is. Might give some of the Biglaw associates who are wailing and gnashing their teeth a little perspective.

Just to get the ball rolling, my year-end bonus was $694.28. And as a special bonus, I got 8 hours of annual leave. Woot!

Are you at a firm that's giving out standard year-end bonuses, but not "special" bonuses (or at least not across the board)? Well, look on the bright side: at least your bonus is denominated in the thousands.

Feel free to discuss your experiences with government lawyer "bonuses" in the comments. Thanks.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch 2007 archives (scroll down)

The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted in favor of the nomination of Michael Mukasey to serve as attorney general. The tally was 11-8, with two Democrats -- Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein -- joining all the Republicans in supporting him.

What had been looking like a nailbiter of a nomination should sail through the full Senate fairly easily. The floor vote on the nomination should take place by next week.

Congratulations, Judge Mukasey!

Nomination of Mukasey Sent to Full Senate [New York Times]
Panel Sends Mukasey Nomination to Senate [Washington Post]

If you're an employee of the U.S. Department of Justice, and your name isn't Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, your job probably doesn't have many perks. They toss a few four-dollar meatballs your way, and public outcry ensues.

And now you can't even go to the office gym, thanks to a potential outbreak of staph infections, aka "Staphylococcus aureus." All three DOJ fitness centers are being closed for "a thorough cleaning" (which makes you wonder how "thorough" the regular cleanings are).

First the rat-ridden day care center, and now this. What next for the DOJ's beleaguered employees?

These are not the easiest times to be at the DOJ. In the wake of the U.S. Attorneys firing controversy, the Justice Department has been plagued by a leadership vacuum (not just in terms of no Attorney General, but a very high number of acting AAGs). It has also suffered from a loss of public respect and low employee morale.

But no gym? To quote Justice Scalia, "this is really more than one should have to bear."

The memo, which includes tips for preventing infection that everyone should read, appears after the jump.

Back in June, we predicted that veteran litigator Joseph Russoniello, of Cooley Godward Kronish in San Francisco, would be nominated to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District. Months later, no nominee has been named. As the folks over at Legal Pad noted last month, it's a bit strange -- especially since Ruossoniello's background check was apparently completed some time ago.

Meanwhile, the office remains in the capable hands of the well-regarded Scott Schools, who will be officially appointed as interim United States Attorney later this week.

But don't expect Schools to stick around forever. We hear that he'll be heading over to take a high-level job at Main Justice (possibly in the Deputy Attorney General's office).

It seems that Schools will be missed in the Northern District. From a source in the N.D. Cal.:

People seem to like him, and he makes an effort to get to know line AUSAs. He shows up at social events, like baby showers and happy hours, which I think is a huge change from former leadership.

If you have any info on these personnel changes, feel free to drop us a line. Thanks.

Northern District of California Announces Appointment of Scott N Schools as Interim United States Attorney [N.D. Cal.]
Say It Is (or Isn't) So, Joe [Legal Pad]

Earlier: Musical Chairs: A New U.S. Attorney for San Francisco?
U.S. Attorney Joe Russoniello? Not So Fast

Following up on our recent coverage of changes to the salary and benefit schemes for federal law clerks, here's an interesting article from the Daily Business Review:

Federal judges around the country will feel the belt-tightening that has cut into other areas of the judiciary in a rule change that limits their ability to hire permanent, career law clerks, rather than cheaper, fresh from school, term clerks.

The cost-containment move, approved Sept. 18 by the judiciary’s 27-member policy body, the Judicial Conference of the United States, is predicted to save tens of millions of dollars in salary costs over the next decade, according to an internal report by the Committee on Judicial Resources.

Discussion picks up after the jump.

We're sorry to report that we haven't heard serious and credible raise rumors lately. In fact, we've heard more gossip about layoffs in recent weeks than about associate pay increases. The rumors of "NYC to 190", which used to flood our email inbox, have gone the way of Testa Hurwitz.

But here is some reason for optimism. From the National Law Journal:

Nearly two decades ago, [Georgetown law professor] Philip G. Schrag said he saw the need to help law students with crippling law school debt....

Help is finally on the way with the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Passed by Congress on Sept. 7, the bill aims to help law students and other graduates with high debt through an income-based loan-repayment plan. The bill also would allow for loan forgiveness for qualifying employees after 10 years of service to government agencies or nonprofit organizations.

Tex Frank explains why this might be good news for some of you, at Overlawyered:

Bush has indicated he'd sign the bill.

The market currently reflects a private-public pay gap reflecting the fact that public jobs are generally considered to have better working conditions and that private-sector law firms need to offer substantially higher pay to encourage attorneys to work there. If the government is providing thousands of dollars of loan subsidies to government and non-profit attorneys, the private sector will need to raise its salaries to continue to compete, some of which will be swallowed by the partners, but most will be swallowed by the clients, who, increasingly facing bet-the-company litigation, have inelastic demand for top law firms. Too, as attorney salaries increase, and loans are subsidized by the government, law schools will be empowered to extract some of that surplus by raising tuition.

Winners: most attorneys, law school employees, and some clients of non-profits. Losers: taxpayers, clients, partners at non-top-tier firms.

Do you concur with Ted Frank's analysis? And what about graduates of non-top-tier law schools, who are the focus of this week at ATL -- how will they be affected by this legislation?

(We'd think that they would be thrilled by anything that might ameliorate crushing loads of educational debt. But if this change could be bad news for non-top-tier firms, it could indirectly be bad news for non-top-tier grads, insofar as non-top-tier firms provide jobs for so many of them.)

Taxpayers to provide additional subsidies for law-school education [Overlawyered]
Law School Loans About to Be Lightened for Some [National Law Journal]
Bush Will Sign Loan-Relief Bill for Public-Interest Lawyers [Daily Journal (subscription)]

Are you trying to remember whether any of your law school classmates or colleagues clerked for former judge Michael Mukasey (S.D.N.Y.), President Bush's nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general?

Well, you're in luck. Every single one of Judge Mukasey's former law clerks signed a glowing letter of recommendation for the judge, in which they praise him as a jurist and mentor and urge his speedy confirmation as AG. Their letter was transmitted to the Senate last night.

You can check out the letter, including the list of signatories, after the jump.

Last week we asked, "What's going on with clerkship salaries and benefits?" Now we have some answers.

Yesterday the Judicial Conference issued a press release that discussed law clerk salaries, among many other subjects. Here are the money (haha) quotes:

The Conference today also voted to continue implementing its cost-containment program by adopting a series of recommendations relating to law clerks and the Judiciary’s Court Personnel System in general....

[T]he Conference agreed that each judge will be limited to one career law clerk. Those 291 career law clerks now in chambers where more than one career law clerk is employed will be able to retain their career status in those chambers, with the assent of their judge, or with another judge if their judge dies, retires, resigns or is otherwise unable to retain a law clerk. Most federal law clerks are "term" clerks and typically serve one or two years. "Career" law clerks are expected to serve four or more years. This new policy limits a term law clerk's term of employment to no more than four years, to be applied prospectively for current term law clerks. Another step replaces law clerk salary matching with a system aimed at achieving salary parity between those law clerks who gain their work experience within the Judiciary and those who gain their experience outside the Judiciary.

For those of you who might be interested in this subject -- e.g., people interviewing for clerkships this week -- additional commentary appears after the jump.

No official announcement has been made (despite the claim of Wikipedia that "[o]n September 16, 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Mukasey to serve as the 81st Attorney General of the United States"). But numerous news outlets are reporting that President Bush has selected Michael B. Mukasey -- currently a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler in New Yorker, and former chief judge of the S.D.N.Y. -- as his attorney general nominee, to replace Alberto Gonzales.

We'll have more to say after an official announcement, which could come as early as tomorrow morning. In the meantime, read Judge Mukasey's interesting, frequently cited Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, on the Jose Padilla case (which he handled in part).

If you have firsthand experience with Judge Mukasey -- e.g., as a litigant who has appeared before him, or as one of his law clerks -- please share your thoughts in the comments, or by email. Thanks.

Bush plans to pick Mukasey for A.G. [Politico.com]
Bush Settles on Mukasey to Replace Gonzales [Washington Post]
Bush Expected to Name Judge as Gonzales's Successor [New York Times]
Judge Top Contender to Replace Gonzales: Aide [Reuters]
Bush Picks Mukasey as Attorney General [AP]
Sources: Retired judge may replace Gonzales [CNN]
Jose Padilla Makes Bad Law [Wall Street Journal]
Michael B. Mukasey [Wikipedia]

Are you a Department of Justice employee? If so, why are you at your desk? Shouldn't you be at the festivities in honor of Alberto Gonzales's last day?

DOJ employees are invited to attend the Farewell Ceremony for Alberto R. Gonzales, 80th Attorney General of the United States. The ceremony will be held at 3:00 p.m., on Friday, September 14, 2007, in the Great Hall. For those unable to attend, the ceremony will be aired on JusticeVision and Justice Television Network.

It won't be as riveting as the Monica Goodling testimony. But then again, what is?

Update (5 PM): A tipster who was there writes: "Just came from the 'Farewell Celabration.' Condi, who led the standing ovations, and Chertoff were the only non-Justice ppl from the Administration. Neither spoke."

In other DOJ departure news, Regina Schofield -- the (non-attorney) Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Office of Justice Programs -- recently announced her resignation, effective September 28.

More here from Wonkette, whose commenters described her as "kinda hot." Our Justice Department sources concur, describing her as someone who "takes care of herself" and is always "perfectly coiffed." She's also reportedly on the quiet side, perhaps unusual for an AAG, which makes her seem "alternately shy or imperious." (So she's no Shanetta Cutlar, who's 0 percent shy and 100 percent imperious.)

If you're curious, Regina Schofield's full resignation message appears after the jump.

Top DoJ Official Resigns V Quietly [Wonkette]
Today Is Gonzo’s Last Day At DOJ [WSJ Law Blog]
Gonzales Ready to Leave the Stage [Washington Post]
Assistant Attorney General Regina B. Schofield Announces Departure [U.S. Department of Justice]
Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Announcing His Resignation [U.S. Department of Justice]

Back on Tuesday, it was widely rumored that an attorney general nomination announcement was imminent -- and that the nominee was going to be former Solicitor General Ted Olson (pictured at right, at his wedding last year).

But we had our doubts. We opined that Olson, confirmed as SG by a narrow 51-47 margin, might be a tough sell in a Democratic Senate.

That opinion looks increasingly solid. From today's Washington Post:

The Senate majority leader said yesterday that Democrats would block former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson from becoming attorney general, kicking off a spirited nomination debate even before the White House has named a candidate.

"Ted Olson will not be confirmed," Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

So it seems that, with respect to Ted Olson, the Dems are throwing down the gauntlet. Why so hostile? Are they upset they didn't get invited to Olson's fabulous, star-studded wedding?

More after the jump.